http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11  

PETITIONER: STATE OF U.P.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: U.P. STATE LAW OFFICERS ASSN.

DATE OF JUDGMENT25/01/1993

BENCH: SAWANT, P.B. BENCH: SAWANT, P.B. VENKATACHALA N. (J)

CITATION:  1994 AIR 1654            1994 SCR  (1) 348  1994 SCC  (2) 204        JT 1994 (1)   225  1994 SCALE  (1)254

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SAWANT,J.-Leave granted in SLP Nos. 14525 and 4912 of 199 1. 2.   This group of appeals raises an important question with regard  to  the status of the law officers  engaged  by  the State  Government to conduct the cases on its behalf in  the High   Court.   Incidentally,  questions  bearing   on   the profession of the lawyer, his relationship with his  client, and  the relationship of the Government and for that  matter of  all the public bodies with the lawyers they  engage  for conducting their matters, also fall for consideration. 3.   At  the  relevant  time, there  were  64  law  officers working  for the U.P. State Government in the High Court  of Allahabad  including its Lucknow Bench.  By an  order  dated July  23, 1990, the State Government removed 26 of the  said law officers.  Out of these, 9 law officers had been working for a long time, some of them for more than 15 years.  Their continuation  as  law  officers  was  till  further  orders. Another  11  officers out of the removed officers  had  been appointed  in  1982-83 and they continued to work  till  the date  of their removal without renewal of their  term.   The remaining six law officers were appointed variously in March and  May  1989  for  a  period  of  one  year  only  with  a stipulation  that  they could be removed  any  time  without giving any reason whatsoever.  Their term had also not  been renewed  after  the expiry of the initial  period  of  their appointment.  There is no dispute that in cases of all these 26  officers  and indeed in cases of all  the  law  officers appointed  in  the  High Court,  the  terms  of  appointment contained  a condition that notwithstanding the  period  for which they were appointed, they could be removed at any time without giving any reason whatsoever. 4.   It appears that before issuance of the aforesaid  order of  removal  dated July 23, 1990, the State  Government  had issued another order on May 26, 1990 by which the system  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11  

engaging Brief Holders in the High Court was abolished  with immediate  effect.  By yet another order of June  28,  1990, the  Government  had authorised the  Legal  Remembrancer  to appoint  special counsel for any special matter  before  the High   Court.   The  order  also  gave  him  financial   and administrative  powers which were earlier exercised  by  the Chief  Standing Counsel and the Public Prosecutor.   He  was further  given power to distribute the work to  the  various Standing Counsel and the Additional Public Prosecutors. 5.  Aggrieved  by  the order dated July 23,  1990,  the  law officers who were removed from their posts, and aggrieved by the order of May 26, 1990, the then Brief Holders approached the  High Court by a writ petition contending,  among  other things,  that  their removal was against the  principles  of natural  justice and that they could be removed  from  their offices only for valid reasons.  The High Court accepted the contention of the law officers and by its impugned judgment, quashed the orders removing them from their 210 offices.   The High Court also quashed the order  dated  May 26,  1990  passed  by  the State  Government  by  which  the Government  had  abolished the system of the  engagement  of Brief  Holders and directed the respondents to continue  the said  system.  The High Court further quashed all the  fresh appointments  made by the State Government and directed  the payment  of remuneration to the officers who  were  removed, from  the  date  of their removal.  In  the  course  of  the judgment, the High Court has also made observations  against the  Legal  Remembrancer.   These  appeals  are,  therefore, preferred  by  the  State as well as those  who  were  newly appointed by the State Government as its law officers. 6.   Before  we  refer to the contentions advanced  on  both sides,  it would be worthwhile to explain the  system  which was prevalent in the State for engaging lawyers to attend to the  government  work in the High Court and  also  the  role assigned to the Legal Remembrancer vis-a-vis the  government lawyers.   Chapter  V  of the  Legal  Remembrancer’s  Manual (hereinafter  referred  to as the ’Manual’) deals  with  the Chief Standing Counsel and the Standing Counsel in the  High Court  and  Chapter VI of the said Manual deals  with  Brief Holders in the High Court.  Chapter VII deals with  District Government  Counsel  with whom we are not concerned  in  the present appeals.  However, that chapter has a bearing on the contentions  advanced  before us and we will deal  with  the same  while discussing the contentions.  Suffice it for  the present to bear in mind that the appointment and  conditions of engagement of District Government Counsel have been dealt with  in the said Manual separately from the appointment  of the  Chief  Standing  Counsel, Standing  Counsel  and  Brief Holders in the High Court. 7.   Paragraph 5.01 of Chapter V states that there shall  be one  Chief Standing Counsel for the High Court at  Allahabad and  another  for  its  Lucknow Bench  and  such  number  of Standing  Counsel  at  both the said benches  as  the  State Government  may from time to time appoint.   Paragraph  5.02 states that in making the appointments of the Chief Standing Counsel   as  well  as  the  Standing  Counsel,  the   State Government   "may,  if  considered  necessary"   take   into consideration the views of the Advocate-General or the Chief Justice or any Judges of the High Court or of any  committee that  "may be" constituted for the purpose.  Paragraph  5.03 then  refers  to the responsibility of  the  Chief  Standing Counsel  for conducting the cases.  It states that he  shall be  responsible  for the conduct of all civil cases  in  the High  Court to which the State Government is a party  except

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11  

such  cases or class of cases as are excluded by  the  State Government  by general or special order.  It further  states that  the Chief Standing Counsel shall work subject to  such general  or  special  directions as may  be  issued  by  the Advocate-General  or  the Legal Remembrancer  from  time  to time.   Sub-paragraph (2) of the said paragraph states  that the Government may entrust any case of special importance to the  Advocate-General  or to a special  counsel.   Paragraph 5.04  refers  to the duties of the Chief  Standing  Counsel. These  duties include (i) representation of the State or  of any authority within the State in such other civil cases  in which he might be directed or required to appear by the 211 Government,  the Legal Remembrancer or the High Court;  (ii) to  present  to the High Court under instructions  from  the Legal Remembrancer, appeals, or applications or petitions on behalf  of the State; (iii) to advise the Government or  the Legal Remembrancer when so required in any matter of a civil nature;  (iv) to make suitable arrangements for the  conduct of  civil  cases in the High Court in  accordance  with  any general  or  special order of the Government  or  the  Legal Remembrancer;  (v) to assign cases to the  Standing  Counsel and  then to the Brief Holders appointed by the  Government; (vi) to report to the Legal Remembrancer the cases in  which the  State Counsel had been adversely commented upon by  the High  Court;  (vii)  to  procure and  submit  to  the  Legal Remembrancer  copies  of any judgment or order of  the  High Court  that  the Government may require or  where  immediate steps  by the State Government are necessary; (viii) to  ask for  instructions from the Legal Remembrancer in  regard  to the   contest  of  the  matters  on  behalf  of  the   State Government;  (ix)  to report to the Legal  Remembrancer  the receipt  of any process on behalf of the Government  and  to furnish  him with a copy of the memo of appeal, revision  or application  as the case may be; (x) to send his opinion  to the  Legal  Remembrancer as to whether any case is  fit  for further  appeal  to the Supreme Court and to submit  to  the Legal Remembrancer such returns as the latter may from  time to time prescribe or     require. 8.   Paragraph 5.05 refers to the duties of Standing Counsel and states that the Standing Counsel shall generally  assist the  Chief  Standing Counsel in performing  his  duties  and functions and shall perform such functions and conduct  such cases  as  may  be allotted to them by  the  Chief  Standing Counsel   or  by  any  general  or  special  order  of   the Government.   Paragraph 5.07 places restriction  on  private practice  of  both the Chief Standing Counsel  and  Standing Counsel.   It  states  that they shall not,  save  with  the special  permission, appear against the State in  any  civil case  or proceeding nor shall they advise any private  party regarding any civil case which might be pending or is likely to  be instituted against the State or any State  authority. It  also states that they shall not, without the  permission of the Legal Remembrancer communicate directly or indirectly to any person or authority the contents of any documents  or convey any information which has come to their possession or knowledge in the course of their duties in any case in which they  appear on behalf of the State Government.  They  shall also  not accept any appointment as Director of any  company without the previous sanction of the Government.   Paragraph 5.08.requires  the  Chief Standing Counsel  to  arrange  and regulate  work in such a manner that an adequate  number  of Standing  Counsel  and/or Brief Holders are present  in  the High Court on every day on which cases under his charge  are fixed for hearing.  Paragraph 5.10 gives power to the  State

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11  

Government  to  transfer the Chief Standing Counsel  or  any Standing Counsel from Allahabad to Lucknow and vice versa in consultation  with the Advocate-General for such period  and on such terms as may be determined by the Government.   They may  also  be asked by the Legal Remembrancer to  appear  on behalf of the State 212 Government in any civil case in any Court in the State in or outside Allahabad or Lucknow.  Paragraph 5.16 requires  that except when otherwise expressly provided, all communications between  the Government and the Chief Standing  Counsel  and the  Standing  Counsel  shall  be  made  through  the  Legal Remembrancer  except in cases of urgency.  But even in  such cases,  the copy of the communications shall  invariably  be sent  to  the Legal Remembrancer.  It is  not  necessary  to refer to the other provisions of this chapter. 9.  Paragraph 6.02 of Chapter VI which deals with the  Brief Holders  in  the High Court refers to the appointment  of  a panel  of Brief Holders in the High Court.  It  states  that the State Government may in consultation with the  Advocate- General  appoint such number of Brief Holders  from  amongst the  practising advocates in the High Court as it  may  deem necessary  from  time  to time to  conduct  such  civil  and criminal  cases  in the High Court as may  be  entrusted  to them.  The paragraph makes it clear that such appointments " shall not be deemed to be appointment to any office or  post but  only professional engagement which shall be  terminable on either side at will".  It requires a minimum of 5  years’ practice  at  the  bar for appointment as  a  Brief  Holder. Paragraph  6.03 states that a Brief Holder shall  ordinarily be  appointed  in  the  first  instance  for  a  period  not exceeding one year and that the subsequent appointments  may be for such number of years not exceeding three as the State Government  may  deem  necessary from  time  to  time.   The remuneration  of  the  Brief  Holders  is  referred  to   at Paragraph  6.04.  On  the civil side, the  Brief  Holder  is entitled  to the same fee as would be payable to a  Standing Counsel for doing similar work and on the criminal side, the remuneration   is  mentioned  in  terms  of  fee   per   day irrespective of the number of cases conducted and the  hours of  work  put  in by him.  No salary or any  other  kind  of monthly remuneration is payable to him.  In case of  dispute with   regard  to  the  fee,  the  decision  of  the   Legal Remembrancer is to be final.  Paragraph 6.05 states that  it is  the Government Advocate who shall allot  criminal  cases and  the Chief Standing Counsel who shall allot civil  cases to the Brief Holders and shall also exercise supervision and control  over  them.  Paragraph 6.06 then  states  that  the Government  Advocate  and the Chief Standing  Counsel  shall entrust only such cases to the Brief Holders which cannot be attended  to  by them or other law officers under  them  and which  are not required to be conducted personally by  them. It   also  details  classes  of  cases  which   shall   not, ordinarily,  be entrusted to the Brief  Holders.   Paragraph 6.07 requires the entrustment of cases to the Brief  Holders by  rotation  in  a  manner  as  may  ensure  an   equitable distribution  of  work among all of them  except  where  the Government Advocate or the Chief Standing Counsel may in the interest  of  the  better  prosecution  of  cases  think  it necessary  to depart from the rule.  Paragraph 6.1  1  gives the Brief Holder, the right to private practice and also for accepting  cases  against the  Government.   Paragraph  6.13 refers  to the manner of removal of Brief Holder and  states that the Government may at any time without prior notice and without assigning any reason whatsoever, remove the name  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11  

the Brief Holder from 213 its  panel.   Paragraph 6.16 prohibits  Brief  Holders  from participating in any political activity so long as they work as  Brief Holders.  The other provisions of the chapter  are not relevant for our purpose. 10. The conditions of service of the Government Advocate and Additional  Government Advocate, Deputy Government  Advocate or  Assistant  Government Advocate for  conducting  criminal matters in the High Court are the same as that of the  Chief Standing Counsel and the Standing Counsel    respectively. 11.  Since the respondents have relied heavily on a judgment of this Court in    Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U. P.  1 which  deals specifically with appointments and  removal  of the District Government Counsel and the Additional/Assistant District  Government Counsel, and the appellants have  tried to distinguish the said judgment, it is necessary to examine the   relevant  conditions  of  service  of   the   District Government  Counsel as detailed in Chapter VII of  the  said Manual.    The   District  Government  Counsel   are   legal practitioners  appointed by the State Government to  conduct in any court other than the High Court such civil,  criminal or revenue cases on behalf of the State Government as may be assigned  to them either generally or  specially  (paragraph 7.01).  The  Government  have  also  the  power  to  appoint Additional  or  Assistant  District  Government  Counsel  or Subordinate  District  Government  Counsel  to  assist   the District Government Counsel (paragraph 7.02). Paragraph 7.03 relates  to  the  appointment  of  the  District  Government Counsel.    Whenever  the  post  of  any  of  the   District Government  Counsel is likely to fall vacant or when  a  new post has been created, the District Magistrate concerned has to  notify  the  vacancy to the members  of  the  Bar.   The qualification  for  appointment  as  a  District  Government Counsel,  Assistant  District Government  Counsel  and  Sub- District  Government  Counsel is 10 years’, 7 years’  and  5 years’ practice respectively.  The District Magistrate shall also ask those who want to be considered for appointment  to give their names to him with their particulars such as  age, length of practice at the Bar, proficiency in Hindi,  income tax paid by him on professional income during the last three years,  details  of  the work handled  by  them  during  the preceding  two years duly verified by the court and also  to state whether they have practised on the criminal, civil  or revenue side.  The District Government Counsel and the legal practitioners   of  the  neighbouring  districts  are   also eligible to be considered for the said post and they have to forward their particulars through their District  Magistrate who  has  to  offer his own remarks on  the  particulars  so given.   When  the names are so received, they  have  to  be considered  by the District Magistrate in consultation  with the District Judge.  The District Magistrate has to give due weight  to the claim of the existing incumbents if any,  and has to submit confidentially in the order of preference  the names of the legal practitioners to the Legal  Remembrancer. He  has  also to give his opinion, particularly,  about  the character,   professional  conduct  and  integrity  of   the candidate and 1 (1991) 1 SCC 212: 1991 SCC (L&S) 742 214 forward  to  the  Legal  Remembrancer  the  opinion  of  the District  Judge  on  the  suitability  and  merits  of  each candidate.  The District Magistrate has also to send to  the Legal   Remembrancer,  the  bio  data  submitted  by   other candidates with such comments that he and the District Judge

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11  

may like to make.  The District Magistrate is also  required to  recommend the name of any person who may  be  considered fit  by  him  although  he has  not  formally  supplied  his particulars.  Paragraph 7.04 then states that on receipt  of the  recommendations of the District Magistrate,  the  Legal Remembrancer  may, if necessary, make such  further  inquiry about the candidate as he may deem necessary and then submit the  recommendations of the District Magistrate  along  with his  own  opinion  for the orders of  the  Government  whose decision  shall  be final.  Paragraph 7.06 states  that  the legal   practitioners  who  are  finally  selected  by   the Government  may be appointed as District Government  Counsel for  one  year.  At the end of the period of one  year,  the District Magistrate after consulting the District Judge  has to  submit  a report on his work and conduct  to  the  Legal Remembrancer  together  with the statement of work  done  by him.    If   his   work  and  conduct  are   found   to   be unsatisfactory,  the  matter  has  to  be  reported  to  the Government  for  orders.   If the report  on  his  work  and conduct is satisfactory, the appointee may be furnished with a deed of engagement in Form No. 1 annexed to the Manual and the  engagement  is  to be for a term  not  exceeding  three years.   The said paragraph makes it explicitly  clear  that the   appointment  of  a  legal  practitioner  as   District Government   Counsel  is  only  a  professional   engagement terminable at will on either side and is not an  appointment to a post under the Government.  Accordingly, the Government reserves  the  power  to terminate the  appointment  of  any District  Government Counsel at any time  without  assigning any  reason.   Paragraph 7.07 bars the  District  Government Counsel   from   participating  in   political   activities. Paragraph  7.08  deals with the renewal of the term  of  the District  Government Counsel and states that at least  three months   before  the  expiry  of  the  term,  the   District Magistrate  shall  after consulting the District  Judge  and considering the incumbent’s past record of work and  conduct and  age, report to the Legal Remembrancer together  with  a statement  of work done by him, whether in his opinion,  the term  of  appointment of such counsel should be  renewed  or not.  The District Magistrate has to send along with his own recommendations,  the opinion of the District Judge.   While giving  his  recommendations for renewal of  the  term,  the District Judge has to give an estimate of the quality of the counsel’s work from the judicial standpoint, his capacity as a  lawyer  and  his professional  conduct.   Similarly,  the District  Magistrate  while  giving  his  report  about  the suitability  of  the District Government  Counsel  from  the administrative   point  of  view,  has  to  report  on   the candidate’s  public  reputation in general,  his  character, integrity  and  professional  conduct.   If  the  Government agrees  with the recommendations of the District  Magistrate for  the renewal of the term of the Government  Counsel,  it may  pass  orders  for reappointing him  for  a  period  not exceeding  three  years.  If the Government decides  not  to reappoint any Government 215 Counsel,  the Legal Remembrancer may call upon the  District Magistrate to forward fresh recommendations.  This procedure is  to be followed on the expiry of every successive  period of renewed appointment.  For the above purpose, the District Magistrate  and  the District Judge are required to  keep  a character roll and maintain a record of the work done by the District  Government Counsel and the capacity  displayed  by him  in  the  discharge of his  work.   The  Government  (in Judicial  Advice Section) is also required to  keep  similar

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11  

character  roll  based  upon the copy  of  the  confidential reports recorded by the District Magistrate and the District Judge,  and  forward  it to  the  Legal  Remembrancer.   The shortcomings on the part of the District Government  Counsel have  at  once  to be brought to the  notice  of  the  Legal Remembrancer.   The District Government Counsel  (Civil)  is prohibited altogether from advising or appearing against the State or Central Government in any civil case pertaining  to the  district  or the local area to which he  is  appointed. However,  he  may appear against the State  or  the  Central Government   with   the  prior  permission  of   the   Legal Remembrancer  in  any civil case in which he  has  not  been retained  by the Government.  Subject to  this  restriction, the  District  Government  Counsel (Civil) has  a  right  to private practices 12.  The  District Government Counsel (Civil) is  prohibited from  becoming  a counsel of any Municipality  or  Municipal Corporation or other local authorities of the area to  which he is appointed.  The Assistant District Government  Counsel (Civil) is prohibited from appearing in suits instituted  by private  parties  against  the State or Union  of  India  in courts  in which according to the allocation of work, he  is alone  authorised to represent the State.  He  is,  however, free to take up private cases against the State or Union  of India in other courts.  Similar restriction is placed on the Sub-District  Government Counsel.  As regards, the  District Government   Counsel  (Criminal)  and  Additional   District Government  Counsel  (Criminal), they  are  prohibited  from appearing  for  any  private party  in  any  criminal  case. However, with certain exceptions, with the prior approval of the Legal Remembrancer, they are allowed to appear.  Similar restrictions  are  placed  on  District  Government  Counsel (Revenue).    Paragraph  7.18  states  that   the   District Government  Counsel  in a district shall be subject  to  the supervision  of  the  Legal  Remembrancer  as  well  as  the District Magistrate.  Their confidential reports are also to be  submitted by the District Magistrate to  the  Government through  the  Legal Remembrancer.  Paragraphs 7.19  to  7.22 deal  with  the duties of the  District  Government  Counsel (Civil),  (Criminal),  (Revenue)  respectively.   Paragraphs 7.24 and paragraphs 7.26 to 7.45 deal with the fees  payable to  the District Government Counsel.  Paragraph  7.61  gives power to the Legal Remembrancer to forfeit the fees  payable to  the District Government Counsel in certain  cases.   The conditions   of   service  of  the   Additional/   Assistant /Subordinate  District  Government Counsel  are  similar  to those of the District Government Counsel mutatis mutandis. 13.  The  appointment of lawyers by the Government  and  the public  bodies  to conduct work on their behalf,  and  their subsequent removal from 216 such  appointment have to be examined from  three  different angles,  viz.,  the  nature of  the  legal  profession,  the interests of the public and the modes of the appointment and removal. 14.  Legal  profession  is  essentially  a  service-oriented profession.  The ancestor of today’s lawyer was no more than a  spokesman who rendered his services to the needy  members of  the  society  by articulating  their  case  before’  the authorities  that  be.  The services were  rendered  without regard to the remuneration received or to be received.  With the  growth  of  litigation, lawyering  became  a  full-time occupation and most of the lawyers came to depend upon-it as the  sole source of livelihood.  The nature of  the  service rendered by the lawyers was private till the Government  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11  

the public bodies started engaging them to conduct cases  on their behalf.  The Government and the public bodies  engaged the  services of the lawyers purely on a  contractual  basis either  for  a  specified  case or for  a  specified  or  an unspecified  period.   Although the contract in  some  cases prohibited  the lawyers from accepting private  briefs,  the nature   of  the  contract  did  not  alter  from   one   of professional  engagement to that of employment.  The  lawyer of the Government or a public body was not its employee  but was a professional practitioner engaged to do the  specified work.   This  is so even today, though the  lawyers  on  the full-time rolls of the Government and the public bodies  are described  as their law officers.  It is precisely for  this reason  that  in the case of such law officers,  the  saving clause  of Rule 49 of the Bar Council of India Rules  waives the  prohibition  imposed  by  the  said  rule  against  the acceptance by a lawyer of a full-time employment. 15.  The  relationship between the lawyer and his client  is one  of trust and confidence.  The client engages  a  lawyer for  personal reasons and is at liberty to leave  him  also, for  the  same reasons.  He is under no obligation  to  give reasons  for  withdrawing his brief from  his  lawyer.   The lawyer  in  turn  is  not an agent of  his  client  but  his dignified,  responsible spokesman.  He is not bound to  tell the court every fact or urge every proposition of law  which his  client wants him to do, however irrelevant it  may  be. He  is essentially an adviser to his client and  is  rightly called  a  counsel in some jurisdictions.   Once  acquainted with the facts of the case, it is the lawyer’s discretion to choose  the  facts  and the points of  law  which  he  would advance.   Being a responsible officer of the court  and  an important  adjunct  of the administration  of  justice,  the lawyer  also  owes  a duty to the court as well  as  to  the opposite side.  He has to be fair to ensure that justice  is done.  He demeans himself if he acts merely as a  mouthpiece of his client.  This relationship between the lawyer and the private  client is equally valid between him and the  public bodies. 16.  Over   the   years,  the  public   sector   has   grown considerably,  and  with its extension  and  expansion,  the number of lawyers engaged in the public sector has increased noticeably  so much so that it can truly be said that  today there  is a public sector in the legal profession  as  well. The   expansion   of  the  public  sector   activities   has necessitated  the  maintenance  of  a  permanent  panel   of lawyers.   Some  of  the  lawyers  are  also  in   full-time employment of 217 the public institutions as their law officers.  The  profile of the legal profession has thus undergone a change. 17.  The  Government  or the public body  represents  public interests,  and  whoever  is  in  charge  of  running  their affairs,  is  no more than a trustee or a custodian  of  the public interests.  The protection of the public interests to the  maximum extent and in the best possible manner  is  his primary  duty.  The public bodies are, therefore,  under  an obligation to the society to take the best possible steps to safeguard  its interests.  This obligation imposes  on  them the  duty  to engage the most competent  servants,  agents., advisers, spokesmen and representatives for conducting their affairs.  Hence, in the selection of their lawyers, they are duty-bound  to  make earnest efforts to find the  best  from among those available at the particular time.  This is  more so  because the claims of and against the public bodies  are generally  monetarily substantial and socially crucial  with

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11  

far-reaching consequences. 18.  The  mode  of  appointment of lawyers  for  the  public bodies,  therefore,  has  to  be  in  conformity  with   the obligation cast on them to select the most meritorious.   An open  invitation to the lawyers to compete for the posts  is by  far the best mode of such selection.  But sometimes  the best  may  not compete or a competent candidate may  not  be available    from   among   the   competitors.    In    such circumstances, the public bodies may resort to other methods such as inviting and appointing the best available, although he  may not have applied for the post.  Whatever the  method adopted,   it  must  be  shown  that  the  search  for   the meritorious  was undertaken and the appointments  were  made only  on  the  basis  of the merit and  not  for  any  other consideration. 19.  It  would be evident from Chapter V of the said  Manual that  to  appoint the Chief Standing Counsel,  the  Standing Counsel and the.  Government Advocate, Additional Government Advocate,   Deputy   Government   Advocate   and   Assistant Government  Advocate,  the  State  Government  is  under  no obligation  to consult even its Advocate-General  much  less the Chief Justice or any of the judges of the High Court  or to take into consideration, the views of any committee  that "    may"  be  constituted  for  the  purpose.   The   State Government  has a discretion.  It may or may  not  ascertain the views of any of them while making the said appointments. Even  where it chooses to consult them, their views are  not binding on it.  The appointments may, therefore, be made  on considerations   other  than  merit  and  there  exists   no provision  to  prevent  such appointments.   The  method  of appointment  is  indeed not calculated to  ensure  that  the meritorious  alone  will  always be appointed  or  that  the appointments  made will not be on considerations other  than merit.   In the absence of guidelines, the appointments  may be made purely on personal or political considerations,  and be arbitrary.  This being so those who come to be  appointed by  such  arbitrary  procedure can hardly  complain  if  the termination  of  their  appointment  is  equally  arbitrary. Those who come by the back door have to go by the same door. This  is  more  so  when the  order  of  appointment  itself stipulates  that the appointment is terminable at  any  time without  assigning any reason.  Such appointments are  made, accepted and understood by both 218 sides to be purely professional engagements till they  last. The  fact  that they are made by public bodies  cannot  vest them with additional sanctity.  Every appointment made to  a public  office, howsoever made, is not  necessarily,  vested with  public  sanctity.   There  is,  therefore,  no  public interest  involved in: saving all appointments  irrespective of  their  mode.  From the inception  some  engagements  and contracts may be the product of the operation of the  spoils system.  There need be no legal anxiety to save them. 20.   As  the  facts  narrated  earlier  show,  out  of   26 respondents-law officers, the period of contract of nine  of them  had  expired  and they  were  continued  till  further orders.   The  remaining seventeen had continued  after  the expiry  of their initial term without even formal orders  of extension.  In other words, none of the 26 officers had  any right to hold the office on the date of their removal,  even under the initial terms of appointment which stipulated  the contractual  period.  This is apart from the fact  that  the terms  of the contracts also provided that  the  appointment could  be terminated at any time without  assigning  reason. The  reliance  placed by the respondents in this  behalf  on

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11  

Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P. 1 is misplaced for  the obvious reason that the decision relates to the  appointment of    the    District    Government    Counsel    and    the Additional/Assistant District Government Counsel who are the law  officers appointed by the State Government  to  conduct civil,  criminal and revenue cases in any court  other  than the  High Court.  Their appointments are made  through  open competition   from   among  those  who  are   eligible   for appointment and strictly on the basis of merit as  evidenced by  the  particulars  of their  practice,  opinions  of  the District  Magistrate and the District Judge and  also  after taking  into  consideration  their  character  and  conduct. Their appointment is in the first instance for one year.  It is  only  after their satisfactory performance  during  that period that a deed of engagement is given to them, and  even then the engagement is to be for a term not exceeding  three years.  The renewal of their further term again depends upon the  quality  of  work and conduct, capacity  as  a  lawyer, professional  conduct,  public reputation  in  general,  and character  and  integrity  as  certified  by  the   District Magistrate  and the District Judge.  For the  said  purpose, the District Magistrate and the District Judge are  required to  maintain a character roll and a record of the work  done by  the  officer  and  the  capacity  displayed  by  him  in discharge  of the work.  His work is also subject to  strict supervision.   The shortcomings in the work are required  to be brought to the notice of the Legal Remembrancer.  It will thus  be  seen  that  the appointment of  the  two  sets  of officers,  viz.,  the Government Counsel in the  High  Court with  whom  we are concerned, and  the  District  Government Counsel with whom the said decision was concerned, are  made by dissimilar procedures.  The latter are not appointed as a part  of the spoils system.  Having been selected  on  merit and  for  no  other  consideration,  they  are  entitled  to continue  in their office for the period of the contract  of their  engagement  and they can be removed  only  for  valid reasons.  The people are interested in their continuance for the period of their contracts and in their  non-substitution by those who may come in through the spoils system.  It is 219 in  these  circumstances  that  this  Court  held  that  the wholesale  termination of their services was  arbitrary  and violative  of Article 14 of the Constitution.  The ratio  of the said decision can hardly be applied to the  appointments of  the  law officers in the High  Court  whose  appointment itself was arbitrary and was made in disregard of Article 14 of the Constitution as pointed out above.  What is  further, since the appointment of District Government Counsel is made strictly  on  the  basis of  comparative  merits  and  after screening  at  different levels, the  termination  of  their services  is not consistent with the public  interests.   We are,  therefore of the view that the High Court committed  a patent  error of law in setting aside the order  dated  July 23,  1990  terminating the services of  the  respondents-law officers. 21.  Coming now to the High Court’s order setting aside  the government order dated May 26, 1990 by which the  Government had  abolished the system of Brief Holders, and instead  the power was given to the Legal Remembrancer to appoint special counsel  for  special matters, we are of the view  that  the High Court has committed a still graver error.  As has  been pointed out above, Chapter VI of the said Manual deals  with the  system  of appointing a panel of Brief Holders  in  the High Court.  The appointment of the lawyers on the panel  of Brief  Holders  is  made by the  State  Government  only  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11  

consultation  with  the  Advocate-General  who  is  its  own officer  and from among the advocates of the High Court  who have completed a minimum of five years practice at the  Bar. The  selection  of  Brief Holders is  not  made  after  open competition.  Their appointment is purely at the  discretion of  the  State Government.  The Brief  Holders  are  further appointed to handle that work which cannot be attended to by the  Government  Advocate and Chief  Standing  Counsel.   No salary or any other kind of monthly remuneration is  payable to them.  They are paid per brief handled by them.  They are not  barred  from private practice or from  accepting  cases against the Government.  It will thus be apparent that their appointment   is   in   supernumerary   capacity.    It   is necessitated  because  there  may be work  which  cannot  be attended  to  by  the  Government  Advocate  and  the  Chief Standing Counsel.  They are not assured of any regular  work much less any regular fee or remuneration.  They get  briefs only  if the Government Advocate and Chief Standing  Counsel are  overworked  and not otherwise.  They are  like  ad  hoc counsel engaged for doing a particular work when  available. Their  only qualification is that they are on the  panel  of the  counsel  to be so appointed for  handling  the  surplus work.  We are, therefore, at a loss to understand as to  how any fault can be found with the Government if the Government has  now  thought it fit to abolish the said system  and  to appoint each time special counsel for special cases in their place. 22.  It is evident from the tenor of the High Court judgment that  the Legal Remembrancer has been made a special  target and  has been treated almost like the villain of the  piece. The  judgment  ignores  that the  Legal  Remembrancer  as  a responsible officer and part of the Government always had  a role  to  play in the appointments of the  counsel,  in  the distribution of the work among them and also in  supervising their work and in sanctioning 220 their  bills.   For this purpose, we have  referred  to  the relevant provisions of Chapters V, VI and VII of the  Manual in extenso Even a cursory reading of the said chapters  will show  that no material additional power has been  vested  in him  by the Government on account of the  present  measures. In  any  case, if the Government has chosen to  do  so,  the Legal  Remembrancer  can  hardly be  blamed  for  the  same. Certainly he does not deserve the kind of compliments  which the  High  Court has chosen to pay him.   The  comments  and observations   made   against  him  are,   therefore,   both unjustified and unfortunate. 23.  In  the result, we set aside the judgment of  the  High Court  and declare that both the orders dated July 23,  1990 and May 26, 1990 are valid and proper.  We further hold that the  termination of the appointment of  the  respondents-law officers  was  valid  and proper.  We  also  hold  that  the direction  given  by  the High Court to  the  Government  to continue the system of Brief Holders is unjustified and  the same  stands  quashed.  We also set aside the order  of  the High  Court  quashing the fresh appointments  and  directing payments to the officers whose appointments were terminated. The  appeals  are  allowed  accordingly.   However,  in  the circumstances  of  the case, there shall be no order  as  to costs. 225